Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

The Use of Blenderized Tube Feeding in Pediatric Patients: Evidence and Guidelines for Dietetic Practice

The purpose of this presentation is five-fold:
- Review of the use of blenderized tube feeds in pediatric populations
- Describe the currently available evidence supporting its use in specific patient populations
- Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the blenderized diet
- Define key parameters in determining the appropriate candidates for blenderized tube feeds
- Present nutritionally complete recipes for use with patients who have been approved for the transition to a blenderized diet

My name is Laura Schoenfeld, and the topic I’ll be presenting today is The Use of Blenderized Tube Feeding in Pediatric Patients: Evidence and Guidelines for Dietetic Practice

Before we start, it’s important to understand why blenderized tube feeding is a topic worth discussing. After all, don’t we have nutritionally complete commercial formulas that have obviated the need for homemade enteral feeds?

As reliance on the internet as a source of family health solutions increases, more parents are discovering and requesting the use of blenderized diets for a variety of reasons, including a growing interest in natural foods for their child’s diet. With books such as The Homemade Blended Formula Handbook, and websites such as www.foodfortubies.com, it is clear that interest in this feeding method will continue to increase over the next few years. Further, the use of blenderized tube feedings may actually provide benefits to some patients, and may be advantageous over the use of commercial preparations in certain populations.

Ultimately, as interest in this technique is likely to grow in the coming years, it is critical for dietitians to understand why and how a blenderized diet should be used in order to guide interested patients in a safe and effective way.

The purpose of this presentation is five-fold. In the next thirty minutes, I will… Review of the use of blenderized tube feeds in pediatric populations Describe the currently available evidence supporting its use in specific patient populations Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the blenderized diet Define key parameters in determining the appropriate candidates for blenderized tube feeds Present nutritionally complete recipes for use with patients who have been approved for the transition to a blenderized diet

The use of enteral feeding has existed since the time of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, when enemas containing solutions of wine, milk, whey, and grain broths were used to provide nutrients, protect an inflamed bowel, or treat diarrheal disease. Rectal feeding was used for thousands of years due to the difficulty in accessing the upper gastrointestinal tract with rudimentary tubes, and the first tubes for oro- or nasogastric feedings were developed during the 16th through 18th centuries. These enteral feeds continued to be made from common foods such as milk, eggs, beef broth, mashed potatoes, and even whiskey or brandy.

In the 1940s, the first infant formula was developed for babies with allergies, diarrhea, and other GI dysfunctions. At the same time, the first studies demonstrating the benefits of using enteral rather than parenteral feeds were published; so the use of tube feedings started to become more common in hospitals where blended formulas were created to provide tolerable nutrition support to patients. In the 1950s, some researchers advocated for the use of tube feedings prepared in hospital kitchens as being better tolerated and more medically sound than the commercially prepared formulas available at the time.

I love this quote by Barron and Fallis, because it demonstrates an understanding that natural foods are highly complex and cannot be completely imitated by human design.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, advocates for chemically defined liquid diets suggesting that proprietary commercial formulas could be easily modified to meet the needs of individual patients while providing precise levels of nutrients required for human health. As commercial formulas became more widely available, safer, and more affordable, blenderized food became a less attractive option for institutional use.

The use of blenderized tube feedings in a hospital setting has now become a rare occurrence, and the use of commercial medical formulas is now standard practice in hospitals. There are few food-based enteral commercial products available for use in hospitals today as the majority of formulas used in hospitals are made of casein hydrolysates, maltodextrin and/or sucrose, and vegetable oils to provide the protein, carbohydrate, and fat ratio found in the standard diet, with some fluctuations depending on the purpose of the formula. In the last 25 years, the number and variety of enteral formulas that are available for use has increased significantly, including the development of pediatric-specific formulas These have made it easier to provide the right balance of nutrients required to optimally support children’s growth while preventing these potential complications from enteral feeding.

When a patient is unable to adequately feed orally for an extended period of time, a gastrostomy tube or g-tube is typically placed via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, also called a PEG

Approximately 11,000 PEGs are performed each year in US children These tube-fed children can be given pediatric enteral formulas for either partial or exclusive enteral feeding in order to provide adequate nutrition for proper growth and development when complete oral feeding is insufficient to meet the child’s needs.

Pediatric patients who require a g-tube for feeding are typically unable to consume adequate calories orally to maintain growth. There are many pediatric conditions that frequently require supplemental or exclusive enteral nutrition to meet children’s nutritional needs. Here is an incomplete list of the many reasons why a child may need to be tube fed. These are problems that may prevent a child from taking in adequate calories orally

Here are some conditions that may require tube feeding due to increased caloric requirements, inability to reliably orally feed, or clinical benefits from using enteral feeding. Crohn’s disease specifically is a condition that is frequently treated using an exclusively enteral diet As you can see, there are many conditions where a child may need to be tube fed for at least part of his or her life to ensure adequate growth

Enteral feeding through a g-tube does have risks and complications. This chart shows the gastrointestinal related complications that come with PEG placement One of the most commonly seen nonsurgical complications is gastroesophageal reflux, also called GER Common symptoms of GER in children from ages 1 to 5 include regurgitation, vomiting, abdominal pain, anorexia, and feeding refusal This can lead to the development of a stimulus-response related feeding aversion, resulting in poor growth and malnutrition

Because of this, a g-tube is often placed operatively in conjunction with a Nissen fundoplication, which is a common surgical treatment that results in a significant reduction in reflux symptoms for up to 97% of patients The complications of this surgery include worsening of feeding problems, dumping syndrome, bloating, and abnormal gastric motility. One particularly common post-fundoplication complication is the development of gagging and retching, which can affect the child’s acceptance of oral feeding and promote oral aversions. These symptoms may continue even after employing such management strategies as changing the formula or adjusting the rate of feeding, and can significantly affect the child’s quality of life.

In 2010, the interdisciplinary feeding team at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center studied the use of pureed foods administered directly into the g-tube of patients who had experienced gagging and retching post-fundoplication surgery They found a significant reduction in the symptoms of post-fundoplication patients on the pureed diet, as seen on this slide. They concluded that the pureed diet can decrease gagging and retching and increase oral intake in children with feeding disorders after fundoplication surgery. They also suggested that the pureed diet can provide a nutritious alternative to formula for children who require long-term enteral nutrition therapy. This was the first major study to validate the benefits of pureed foods in children who are enterally fed.

Since the publication of those results, a number of other medical teams have experimented with the use of pureed or blenderized diets to help increase feeding tolerance and reduce gagging, retching, and vomiting in patients with feeding tubes. For example, dietitians in the pulmonary division at Cincinnati Children’s have used the pureed by g-tube diet to help improve enteral tolerance in their pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis who have had a feeding tube placed to ensure adequate nutritional intake. Blenderized or food-based formulas have also been used to improve the treatment outcomes of children with chronic diarrhea or epilepsy and adults with major burns or cancer-related cachexia. These findings demonstrate the range of potential patients who might benefit from receiving blenderized feeds.

Feeding teams that use blenderized diets have reported greater volume tolerance and improvements in reflux and constipation in their pediatric patients. These clinicians also suggest that the use of a blenderized diet facilitates the transition from tube feeding to oral feeding, as children often consume the same foods through the tube as they are being offered by mouth.

There are also non-medical reasons why parents request to change their child’s diet to a blenderized one The use of blenderized family foods can provide greater inclusion in family meals and acclimatization to the gastrostomy tube feedings. Many families enjoy providing their child with a blenderized diet, as preparing and administering a blenderized feed allows the parent to take a more active role in feeding their child.

A major caveat to the use of the blenderized or pureed tube feed is that there is little published evidence available to support the efficacy of this technique. While lack of evidence is not evidence against, there are only a handful of studies demonstrating the benefits of using this feeding technique for a limited number and variety of patients. urrently, there are no studies that have verified the efficacy and safety of the use of blenderized tube feeds in a hospital setting In fact, some studies have demonstrated a risk of bacterial contamination from using blenderized feeds institutionally. Food-borne pathogens in homemade feeds can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps, and may be linked to chronic diseases such as hepatitis, septic and aseptic arthritis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Immunocompromised and critically ill patients are at especially high risk for contracting these food-borne illnesses.

There are other, more practical reasons why most institutions have switched from blenderized enteral formulas to commercially prepared, ready-to-use enteral formulas. Hospital- prepared blenderized tube feedings can provide unpredictable levels of micronutrients and macronutrients and may deliver inadequate amounts of some nutrients. The viscosity of these feedings may also be unsuitable for reliable infusion through feeding tubes, and makes continuous feeds more challenging. Blenderized feeds are also difficult to customize. While commercially prepared formulas are available in disease-specific formulations, the individualizing of blenderized recipes to meet patient needs is time and labor intensive, and may not actually be feasible in institutional settings.

More studies are needed to test the nutritional adequacy, safety, and clinical outcomes when using a blenderized diet in a variety of populations and settings. Cost can be a major factor for many families when choosing a treatment option, and little is known about the expense of blenderized diets compared to commercial formulas. Evidence is also lacking on the safety of homemade tube feeds when created in the patient’s home. This makes it difficult to make evidence-based recommendations to parents and patients who inquire about the benefits of homemade tube feeds.

However, if parents express strong interest in a blenderized diet, and care is taken in determining the suitability of the candidate, it is possible for a blenderized tube feed to meet the nutritional needs of the patient while addressing safety concerns. While there are no formal guidelines for the development and administration of a blenderized diet, several publications have described criteria for patient selection, recommendations for caretaker education, and methods for developing a nutritionally appropriate blenderized diet. I will now summarize those recommendations.

Because the use of a blenderized diet is not currently the standard of practice, dietitians are encouraged to provide parents with a waiver that protects against liability in the case of a poor outcome. Until there are more studies supporting the efficacy and safety of this treatment, blenderized tube feeds should only be used with patients whose caretakers have requested the change to a blenderized formula and who thoroughly understand benefits and risks.

The key parameters for determining whether a child is a good candidate for a blenderized tube feed are depicted in this figure. These steps are frequently cited by experienced practitioners as the minimum requirements for the consideration of switching to a blenderized diet, but there may be additional considerations that require clinical judgment. The child must be at least 4 months of age, and 6 months is the recommended minimum age when solid foods can start to be introduced. The patient must be medically stable with appropriate weight gain and a well-healed gastrostomy site. If the child has a jejunostomy rather than a gastrostomy, they should not be given a blenderized diet since these patients typically require continuous feeds with elemental or semi-elemental formulas that have been predigested for absorption by the small intestine.

Children with a tube size less than 10 French are poor candidates, as the smaller tube is more likely to get clogged when using a blenderized diet. The recommended tube size is 14 French or larger. Children with multiple food allergies may also be poor candidates, due to the greater difficulty of creating a tolerable and nutritionally complete blenderized formula for these patients. Children with immunosuppression or undergoing immunosuppressive therapy, as in cases of organ transplants or certain types of cancer treatment, should not use blenderized feeds, as risk of infection by a contaminated enteral formula is significantly higher than when using commercial formulas.

A child who is unable to tolerate bolus feeds or has a severe volume limitation due to delayed gastric emptying will not likely be able to rely exclusively on a blenderized diet. However, adding small boluses of a blenderized formula throughout the day is an option for these patients It is not recommended to use blenderized formulas for children needing continuous feeds which requires the formula to be refrigerated to reduce contamination risk Children with extremely high energy demands or with fluid restrictions below 30 ounces per day may not be able to meet their needs using blenderized food alone

There are also non-medical reasons why some patients may not be good candidates for a blenderized formula. Children whose families receive formula funded by public agencies may not be able to afford a change to a blenderized diet, or may not have access to the nutrition professional that can design the appropriate diet to ensure nutritional adequacy and follow up on growth and formula tolerance. Any family who lacks access to adequate refrigeration, electricity, or clean water should not be considered for a change to a blenderized diet. The child’s care providers must demonstrate strong motivation and appropriate understanding of the planning, preparation, and overall time requirements associated with a blenderized diet The family must be capable of preparing the blenderized feeds in a safe and nutritionally-appropriate manner, with access to the required ingredients, including additional multivitamins, and equipment required for preparation, such as a high quality blender Finally, it is crucial that the family is completely in agreement with and interested in the change to a blenderized diet, and caretakers should not feel that the diet change is being forced upon them by a medical or feeding team

In some cases, the motivation for switching to a blenderized diet may not be medical but rather social or psychological in nature. If the child is not experiencing any significant negative effects from their current formula but their caretakers are simply interested in feeding their child what they perceive to be “real” food, the child may be a good candidate provided they do not have any of the contraindicating factors listed above This is increasingly likely to be a factor in the decision to switch to a blenderized diet, as recent research suggests that 50% of Americans look for natural ingredients on their food labels, 18% are concerned with their ability to pronounce the ingredients listed, and 28% are now purchasing more natural or organic foods as a result of information they had heard or read about chemicals in food. These trends suggest that interest in foods with whole, “natural” ingredients will continue to grow, which is an interest likely shared by patients who rely on tube feeding as their primary source of nutrition.

Even if a patient’s family has requested the change to a blenderized diet, the caretakers must be thoroughly educated on the use of blenderized diets before a decision is made to proceed with the formula change. The family must have considered the advantages and disadvantages of a blenderized diet and must understand the significant time and energy required for the preparation of the homemade formula.

They must also understand the potential risks including allergic response, food-borne illness, clogging of the tube, and the potential for weight loss and inadequate nutrition due to parent or dietitian error in recipe design and preparation. The caretakers must demonstrate understanding of the commitment required before making the decision to proceed with a blenderized diet.

Once it has been established that the patient is a good candidate for a blenderized diet, there are several important steps to take when designing an appropriate formula. As the blenderized diet is designed for the child’s individual nutritional needs and caretaker preferences, an experienced dietitian must calculate and modify the diet to meet these needs. The first step in designing a formula is to conduct a thorough review of the child’s medical history, including current anthropometric data that will be used to estimate the child’s nutritional needs including calories, protein, fluid, and micronutrients

It is recommended to use a computerized program such as The Food Processor Program® by ESHA Research or ProNutra® by Viocare to analyze the levels of these nutrients in any recipe that is developed. These programs allow the dietitian to save the data for future reference, adjust recipes based on follow-up results, and provide documentation to families and other members of the medical team.

Other factors to consider when designing a diet are the patient’s ethnic or religious preferences, documented allergies or intolerances, and characteristics of the current formula being used. The current formula can also be used as a liquid base for the initial blenderized diet, as this can helped ensure nutritional adequacy of the formula while transitioning. Some medical professionals recommend starting with pureed commercialized stage 2 baby foods for the first recipe, to provide consistent nutritional content and eliminate the need for a blender Once these stage 2 baby food recipes have been well tolerated, the diet may be advanced to include blenderized table foods

Some protein should be from a liquid source to form the base of the blenderized formula and ensure proper consistency. The liquid protein source can be cow, soy, nut, or rice milk, or even the patient’s original commercial formula, depending on the patient’s tolerance, cost considerations, or allergies. Though counterintuitive, using the patient’s original formula as the base in a blenderized recipe has been found effective for producing a reduction in gagging and retching symptoms A minimum of four to eight ounces of the selected liquid protein source should be used to ensure adequate fluidity.

A second, solid source of protein can be used to meet the patient’s overall protein goals, which are calculated using the age-appropriate estimated Dietary Reference Intakes This solid protein is usually some type of meat like beef, chicken, or fish, or yogurt, and should meet 80-90% of the patient’s daily protein needs once added to the fluid protein source. The child needs between 12% and 15% of his or her total calories from protein.

The child should be getting 55% to 60% of his or her calories from carbohydrates if not on a ketogenic or carbohydrate-restricted diet

The formula should use plant foods that the child has been previously exposed to, to avoid potential allergic reactions. The recipe should include both green and red/orange vegetables to provide both vitamin A and vitamin C in the recipe. Non-starchy vegetables and most fruits add to total volume without contributing significant calories, and therefore should be kept less than 8 to 12 ounces total for the entire recipe. Grains are used to add calories, carbohydrates, and fiber, and commonly used, well- tolerated varieties include rice, barley, and oats.

Most recipes contain 1 to 2 tablespoons of added fat, and it is important to use a fat that provides adequate amounts of the essential omega-3 and omega-6 fats required for health. The child should be getting 30% to 35% of his or her calories from fat unless specifically on a higher fat and/or ketogenic diet

Canola oil is commonly used as it contains both omega-3 and omega-6 fats, though a blend of olive oil and fish or cod liver oil can also be used If choosing the latter option, limit fish or cod liver oil to one half of a teaspoon, and use olive oil for the remainder of the required added fat.

Once the initial recipe has been developed, the dietitian should use recipe analysis software (Food Processor, ProNutra, etc.) to review the nutritional adequacy of the recipe for the individual patient. It is important to ensure adequate calories, protein, fluid, and micronutrients, and to appropriately balance the macronutrient ratios as recommended above. The dietitian can further adjust the recipe to the desired composition, typically by providing additional fat or carbohydrate sources, or a commercial calorie supplement if desired.

This is a sample screen from the software ProNutra, which can be used to analyze recipes and uses USDA Standard databases for all food items listed.

Once the base formula has been developed, the micronutrient composition of the recipe should be reviewed and compared to the DRIs for the child’s age and size. Many of the child’s needs can be met by adding a commercial children’s multivitamin to the mixture

The major micronutrients to consider are calcium, iron, and sodium Sodium and electrolyte supplementation protocols are typically developed by individual institutions, but additional sodium may be supplemented using normal saline or Pedialyte® flushes between formula boluses. If the formula’s free water does not meet the child’s fluid needs, additional free water should be given as either a flush or as a bolus in between formula boluses, with enough time between boluses to prevent any volume overload and exacerbation of retching, gagging, or vomiting.

Caretakers will eventually be bolusing the entire blenderized formula via 60-mL catheter tip syringes using slow, small pushes over several feedings The feeding schedule is typically determined by using the patient’s current intake, feeding history, age, and size as a guide, with initial bolus sizes starting at 1 ounce and given spaced throughout the day, and increased in volume as tolerated

After the formula has been designed and the patient has been transitioned, monitoring the patient requires the same parameters as a normal enterally fed pediatric patient Growth velocity should be monitored carefully to ensure the patient is continuing to gain in both height and weight appropriately and any weight changes should be documented and addressed. Calorie, protein, vitamin, mineral, and fluid intake must be assessed initially and then monitored regularly as the child’s individual needs change Frequent nutrition re-evaluations should be scheduled to assess the family’s satisfaction with the blenderized diet and alter the feeding plan as needed based on the child’s response and overall health

Dietitians must educate caretakers about potential side effects to watch for after changing to a blenderized formula. Symptoms of enteral formula intolerance include a worsening of gagging, wretching or vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal distention, constipation, and cramping or dumping syndrome These symptoms are typically less of a concern for patients on blenderized diet and often decrease after the change in formula is made. In the few blenderized diet studies that have been conducted, no families reported that their child’s symptoms worsened or that any reduction in oral intake after starting the blenderized diet was observed

To meet the need for a standard blenderized recipe that closely matches the standard commercial pediatric enteral formulas currently on the market, nine recipes were developed using either baby food or regular food ingredients; three of these recipes are dairy-free. The program used to design the following recipes was ProNutra®, which uses the USDA Standard Reference 21 database to analyze nutrients of each ingredient chosen. This database was the most recent available and was used to analyze each ingredient included in the recipes, with the exception of the milk alternatives which were manually entered into the program from the USDA Standard Reference 26 database. The recipe creation was conducted at the NC TraCS Institute in cooperation with the Nutrition Research and Biometabolism Team in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

The recipes provide approximately 1000 calories per batch, and contain by calories approximately 55% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 30% fat. While the micronutrient levels vary between recipes, this can be corrected by the addition of a children’s complete multivitamin to ensure adequate intake of all the essential vitamin and minerals The recipes were designed using the instructions from published guidelines for calculating and preparing a pureed-by-gastrostomy-Tube diet for pediatric patients with retching and gagging post-fundoplication.

Macronutrient ratios were based on the recommendations of Therese O’Flaherty and the team at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who suggested recipes meet the following goals: 12% to 15% of calories from protein, 30% to 35% of calories from fat, and 55% to 60% of calories from carbohydrates .

In order to meet the exact calories and macronutrients as analyzed, these recipes must be prepared by weighing individual ingredients and meeting the amount of grams specified in the “Measure” column of the recipe tables. Parents can use the “Easy Measure” category to estimate rather than weigh ingredients for easier preparation of these recipes. Preparing recipes using the “Easy Measure” guidelines will not provide the exact calories and macronutrients as analyzed, but these measures have been estimated to come within a close range of each ingredient. Using the “Easy Measure” ingredients will help caretakers to quickly but confidently provide adequate calories and macronutrients to the patient.

Ideally, however, caretakers should use a digital kitchen scale to weigh each ingredient in grams as indicated in the recipes to ensure nutritional adequacy of the recipe as developed.

When prepared using a Blendtec® blender, the recipes created between 1.5 and 2 liters of volume per 1000 calories. Baby food recipes required no blending and were easily mixed using a whisk, creating a formula slightly thinner than that created using the blender.

“Nutrition Facts” labels have been created for easy reference for parents and caretakers that prefer to have more information on the general nutrients they are providing their child in each standardized recipe.

Most patients will require more or less than 1000 calories per day to meet their needs. Once daily calorie needs have been established, the dietitian working with the patient must multiply the ingredients in these recipes by the number of calories the child needs divided by 1000. For example, if a patient’s estimated needs are 1500 calories per day, the dietitian should multiply the ingredients by 1500/1000, (or by a factor of 1.5). This will allow the parent to prepare a recipe that meets the daily caloric needs of the child while meeting the appropriate macronutrient ranges. The dietitian can also adjust these recipes by providing additional fat or carbohydrate calories depending on their clinical assessment of the patient’s needs.

As the micronutrient levels of each recipe vary, it is recommended that patients also be given a children’s complete multivitamin to ensure appropriate levels of essential vitamins and minerals. Caretakers can either crush a chewable tablet or use a liquid supplement, and add to the blenderized mixture. Options for complete multivitamins to use include Nature’s Plus® Animal Parade®, Garden of Life® Vitamin Code Kids®, or Flintstones® Complete Chewable Tablets. The dietitian may recommend any complete multivitamin brand using clinical judgment and may choose to add additional vitamins or minerals depending on the child’s individual health requirements.

Sodium needs vary depending on age and health status. The recipes included in this document contain comparable sodium to commercial pediatric enteral formulas such as Nestlé’s Nutren Junior, however it is recommended that the dietitian determine the individual sodium requirements of the patient and adjust sodium as needed. The Institute of Medicine recommends an Adequate Intake of 1000 mg sodium for children 1-3 years of age, 1200 mg sodium for children 4-8 years of age, and 1500 mg sodium for children 9-18 years of age. Sodium needs can be met by adding measured amounts of salt to the recipes or by providing a standardized saline solution either as a flush or by adding to the recipe. Sodium tablets can also be crushed and added to recipes to meet the child’s sodium needs. The method of providing adequate sodium will vary between clinics, and dietitians should use clinical judgment to determine how much sodium and which type of supplement to use.

Fluid needs will also vary between patients, and dietitians should make recommendations based on the estimated needs of each patient. Dietitians should ensure that patients are meeting their fluid needs by adding additional free water flushes throughout the day for children who are unable to take any fluids by mouth. It is recommended to provide this additional fluid as a flush rather than adding it to a recipe to avoid excessive volume, but some water may be added to a recipe to decrease viscosity as needed. The dietitian should monitor patients for signs of dehydration as is done with all enteral feedings.

Proper food safety precautions must be taken to prevent bacterial contamination of the blenderized formula. All meat and grain items should be thoroughly cooked before blending and all produce (fruit and vegetables) must be thoroughly washed. Care must be taken to acquire uncontaminated water by boiling or filtering tap water, or by purchasing bottled and/or distilled water. Dairy products must be pasteurized and all packaged items must be used before their expiration dates. Caretakers should be instructed in equipment cleaning technique in addition to safe food-handling practices. All syringes and the blender need to be completely dismantled, washed, and air-dried after each use. Preparation surfaces should be kept clean and hands should be properly washed to minimize bacterial contamination risk.

Variability in the recipe preparation should be expected, as this is one of the known issues with using a blenderized rather than a commercial formula. Therefore, a dietitian must closely monitor the patient and assess weight and height velocity, changes in symptoms such as gagging, retching, or vomiting, changes in oral feeding habits, any nutritionally relevant lab values for blood markers such as electrolytes, vitamin status, blood lipids and proteins, and urine sodium to monitor clinical outcomes in individual patients. If the child is maintaining or improving his or her growth trajectory as measured on appropriate growth charts, the dietitian can feel confident that the recipes she or he has provided are nutritionally adequate for the patient.

In order to improve understanding and aid clinical decision-making, more research is needed on the use of blenderized tube feeds. It is currently unknown whether a blenderized tube feed can be helpful in other conditions, such as pediatric Crohn’s disease or cystic fibrosis. Additional research using larger sample sizes with matched control groups would help to determine the potential benefits or harm from using a blenderized diet instead of a commercial diet Even if a blenderized diet does not cause harm or malnutrition, it is unclear whether the cost of preparing a blenderized diet, including time, ingredients, tools, and labor, provides sufficient benefits to make this a preferred method of feeding Finally, it would be ideal to test the recipes included in this document using a laboratory- based nutrient analysis to determine the actual nutritional content of the recipes as prepared. Even though the estimated nutrient content is based on published USDA food and nutrient data, there is potential for variation between the estimated and actual nutrient content of the recipes. If blenderized recipes were shown to reliably contain the nutrients as intended when the recipe was developed, dietitians could be confident they were providing patients with a similar level of nutrition that commercial formulas provide. This would allay fears that a blenderized diet could be nutritionally inferior to a commercial formula diet.

Enteral feeding was originally developed over thousands of years using whole food ingredients, and a return to whole food ingredients is a desirable option for many parents of children with feeding tubes. By using meticulously prepared blenderized recipes, providing multivitamins and additional fluid, and monitoring the growth and feeding tolerance of the patient, dietitians can feel confident that they are providing a nutritionally replete diet to children with feeding tubes. These diets can be both safe and effective for children requiring enteral nutrition to grow appropriately.

I’d like to thank Dr. Karen Corbin, who assisted me greatly in the preparation, writing, and editing of this paper. Christi Hall, MS, RD and Sharon Wallace, RD at UNC Children’s Hospital, who gave me the idea for this paper and taught me valuable information about pediatric dietetics Gustav Swenson and Beth MacIntosh at the NC TraCS Institute, who heaped me in the development of the recipes included in this paper My mom, who helped me edit the paper and test the recipes in our kitchen And my dog Penny, for eating the recipes we tested so the food didn’t go to waste

The Use of Blenderized Tube Feeding in Pediatric Patients: Evidence and Guidelines for Dietetic Practice

1.
The Use of Blenderized Tube Feeding in Pediatric Patients:
Evidence and Guidelines for Dietetic Practice
A Masters Thesis Presentation by Laura Schoenfeld
December 13, 2013

4.
It is critical for dietitians
to understand why and
how a blenderized diet
should be used in order
to guide interested
patients in a safe and
effective way.

5.
Review of the use of blenderized tube feeds in pediatric
populations
Describe the currently available evidence supporting its
use in specific patient populations
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the
blenderized diet
Define key parameters in determining the appropriate
candidates for blenderized tube feeds
Present nutritionally complete recipes for use with
patients who have been approved for the transition to a
blenderized diet

8.
“Accumulating evidence stresses more
and more the complexity of nutritional
needs of the human body…
Up to the present time, we know of no
manufactured preparation which can
surpass or even equal such natural
foods as beef steak, liver, eggs, milk,
fruit, and vegetables.”
– Barron and Fallis, 1953
Barron, J. and L. S. Fallis (1953). "Tube feeding with liquefied whole food." Surg Forum 4: 519- 522.

9.
History of Enteral Feeding
1960s-1970s
Commercial formulas
became more widely
available, safer, and more
affordable
Blenderized food became a
less attractive option for
institutional use
Harkness, L. (2002). "The history of enteral nutrition therapy." J Am Diet Assoc 102(3): 399-404.

16.
Pureed diet improves gagging and
retching in children with fundoplication
17 of 33 children (52%)
reported a 76% to 100%
decrease in gagging
19 of 33 (57%) children were
reported to have an increased
oral intake.
Parents were highly satisfied
No child’s symptoms
worsened

22.
What we don’t know…
Are blenderized diets effective in conditions that
haven’t been studied yet?
Are blenderized diets comparative in cost to
commercial formulas?
Is there a cost-benefit to using a blenderized diet?
Are blenderized diets safe when prepared at
home?

36.
Choosing Carbohydrates
Use plant foods that child has been previously exposed to
Include both green and red/orange vegetables
Non-starchy vegetables and most fruits add to total volume
Grains are used to add calories, carbohydrates, and fiber
(e.g. rice, barley, and oats)
Child should be getting 55% to 60% of his or her calories
from carbohydrates
O'Flaherty, T., K. Santoro and S. Pentiuk (2011). ICAN: Infant, Child, & Adolescent Nutrition 3(6): 361-

38.
Choosing a fat source
Canola oil is commonly
used as it contains both
omega-3 and omega-6 fats
A blend of olive oil and fish
or cod liver oil can also be
used
Limit fish or cod liver oil
to one half of a teaspoon

45.
Recipe Development
9 recipes developed using either baby
food or regular food ingredients
3 recipes are dairy-free
ProNutra® by Viocare
USDA Standard Reference 21
Milk alternatives (rice, almond) were
manually entered
Work done at NC TraCS Institute in
cooperation with the Nutrition Research
and Biometabolism Team in Chapel Hill,
North Carolina

48.
Adjusting the Recipe
Multiply the ingredients in these recipes by the
number of calories the child needs, divided by 1000
Ingredients x (Kcal Needs)/1000
If a patient’s estimated needs are 1500 calories per
day, the dietitian should multiply the ingredients by
1500/1000, (or by a factor of 1.5)
Ingredients x 1500/1000 = 1.5 x Ingredients

49.
Sodium Needs
Institute of Medicine
recommends:
1000 mg sodium for
children 1-3 years of age
1200 mg sodium for
children 4-8 years of age
1500 mg sodium for
children 9-18 years of age
IOM (2004). Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Institute of
Medicine.

52.
More Research is Needed
Other conditions? (e.g. Crohn’s, cystic fibrosis)
Current research is underpowered, can’t
determine true benefits and/or harm
Cost-Benefit analysis of blenderized diet
Do blenderized diets provide the nutrients
they are supposed to?